Monogamy, Is it Unnatural ?

[Nick333]

imo there are two important factors which have changed sexual dynamics over the last 50 years:

1. female equality: suffrage, rights, financial emancipation and resultant gender roles;
2. overall longevity across the board.

the results:
1. female selection criteria for males is changing in heterosexual relationships
2. marriage is happening later (if at all) and children are being born later in life (approaching a decade after reproductive peak).

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1586/cha...erican-mothers
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...ily-later.html

what does this have to do with monogamy?
1. if you're horniest in your twenties, and aren't forced to marry at minimum age, and only want to settle down in your thirties, monogamy isn't necessary in the interim.
2. if you've learned to be self-sufficient in your twenties, is a lifelong partner really necessary for raising a child?

sure, it's reductionist. but i'm not really trying to make any value judgements here. i'm just trying to highlight nerfherder's earlier comment: what's "natural" / historical / normative isn't necessarily the best course forward. it seems to me that humans adapt to environmental pressure and then try to normalise the response. the problem is that external factors [population explosion / global competition / contraception / post-war depression / wealth / health / future scarcity etc] have changed so fast in the past 50 years, that norms are battling to catch up.

Ooooh. Check out Mr Academic.

Kidding nice post. Seriously though, all this about men will tell you this women will tell you that is nonsense. I think what's normal for an individual will change with maturity and circumstances. Having said that, social norms are still a massive influence on what people do or at least say.

[DarthCat]

no not unnatural. one wife is enough

[Nick333]

no not unnatural. one wife is enough

OP isn't comparing it to polygamy. The question is, is one vagina (or penis) enough?

[SoulTax]

Multiple partners is the natural way. It is encoded in most of us to want to spread our genes as far and as wide as we can. This is not an argument for cheating on your spouse or anything like that. If you have submitted to social norms, with someone that expects to follow social norms, then that is what you do.

The main difficulty with trying to do it the natural way in this modern age, is that the "Alpha Male" is not the same as a few thousand or even hundred years ago. That big dull guy with hardly enough active brain cells to rub together, but with the perfect physical body is now a construction worker, not the protector of the village. The Alpha is now someone with lots of money. Because literally if you have lots of money, you can support lots of kids. By supporting them you are ensuring their future success, to be rich and have lots of kids.

I think besides the social norms telling us to have one partner. It is also about the number of kids that we can support. I can support 2 maybe 3 kids comfortably in my lifetime. That amount with one partner is quite normal in nature, because you want variation of genes from both specimens. To then go and have more kids with someone else, and to support those kids? That is a little tough in our current society.

[joelus]

Multiple partners is the natural way. It is encoded in most of us to want to spread our genes as far and as wide as we can. This is not an argument for cheating on your spouse or anything like that. If you have submitted to social norms, with someone that expects to follow social norms, then that is what you do.

It's not only about spreading our genes far and wide, it's also about ensuring our genes survive.

This is one very big difference between humans and other mammals which means, among humans, it makes evolutionary sense to form long term partnerships with a single partner.

However, I think among humans, both are natural, it's not one or the other.

[SoulTax]

It's not only about spreading our genes far and wide, it's also about ensuring our genes survive.

This is one very big difference between humans and other mammals which means, among humans, it makes evolutionary sense to form long term partnerships with a single partner.

However, I think among humans, both are natural, it's not one or the other.

Yes sure, which is why you need to be filthy rich to get the best of both worlds. One partner fulfills the survival part, many ensures the variation part. But also many can ensure the survival of our genes too. In lots of ways, many has a higher chance of ensuring the survival of our genes. Having 2 kids with one partner may help to ensure that those kids are successful in life and well looked after, but if each kid only has 1 or 2 children of their own, then you have only increased your offspring gene pool by 300%.
But if you banged all over the show. You could end up with 20 or 30 illegitimate kids. If half of those dont survive childhood, and only half of those left ever breed, you still end up with 5 to 14 offspring, in the 2nd generation. Far better variation and odds on survival of your genes there.

So having one partner is less about the fundamental aspect of ensuring our genes survive, but more about social and economic pressures in taking responsibility for your actions. One is natural(primal), the other I feel is more about being conscionable.

Then again it is in many ways our conscience that makes us human.

[ChocolateBadger]

Monogamy is a religious thing but I can dig it

[DrJohnZoidberg]

Monogamy is a religious thing but I can dig it

It's not really. Monogamy is most likely an evolutionary trait. A very large portion of bird species are monogamous, this doesn't mean that they don't cheat on their partner but more the fact that they form a bond with one specific mate. If you think of this it makes a lot of sense for the survival of their offspring.